-----Original Message----- From: Tomas L. Byrnes Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 4:08 PM To: 'Niels Bakker' Subject: RE: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
There was nothing in my post advocating free transit or peering. I merely pointed out that peering only without downstream propagation was a technical error, based on the proper implementation of the protocols as designed. All the discussion of practicality and politics are implementation failures: the first because of crappy routers, the second because of the established player issue you called out. We've all had enough of crappy networks causing unreachability. >-----Original Message----- >From: Niels Bakker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:30 AM >To: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts > >* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomas L. Byrnes) [Tue 04 Nov 2008, 17:51 CET]: >>The concept of "Transit Free" is a political failure, not a technical >>one. > >Yeah, networks should be free! And Cogent, if they don't get access to >Sprint directly, should just set a default route over some public IX >where Sprint is also present at to reach their network!! And then hack >their routers to do likewise. > > >>The protocols are designed, and the original concept behind the >Internet >>is, to propagate all reachability via all paths. IE to use Transit if >>peering fails. > >Yeah, the original concept of the internet. Like classful IP routing. > > >>Not doing so is a policy decision that breaks the redundancy in the >>original design. > >Because the original design totally had in mind established players >locking out cheaper newcomers and explicitly specified a maximum band >where prices for transit had to exist inside of. > >Please stop it. We've had enough. > > > -- Niels. > >-- >"We humans get marks for consistency. We always opt for > civilization after exhausting the alternatives." > -- Carl Guderian >
